Sorry, your best man is gay

2456711

Comments

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Yes. It’s not a requirement in England where there’s no legal minimum age. The officiant needs to make a judgment about the prospective witness’s capacity.

    I'm reasonably certain that nobody - not even a CofE officiant - can determine a witness is not suitable on the basis of sexuality.
    Yes. There’s no way there sexuality has any bearing on their legal capacity as a witness.
  • @fineline yes to so much of that.

    My pastoral take is that people's private lives belong to them and so long as they don't impinge on the gathered church (say, recruiting for a threesome or publicly extolling the virtues of promiscuity) they are none of anybody else's business.

    I also agree that this is likely a power thing. The dividing line in my mind is between those seeking to have power to wield it over others and those using the power they have to empower others.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Anglican priests have a civil office as registrars so far as I can make out. I can understand them being reluctant to do walk-in marriages for complete unknowns, but it seems to me that they have not only a religious but also a civic duty to their parishoners. Preserving the perks of Established Church status whilst also wanting to pick and choose who they exercise the duties of that status for seems profoundly unjust to me, and another argument in favour of disestablishment. (I much prefer all marriages to be civil with a religious ceremony thereafter for those who so wish, which is how we do things in France).
    This. And it's worth saying that the "civil ceremony + church blessing" thing doesn't just apply to secularist France but to many other countries including traditionally Protestant Holland where it has been the norm for centuries.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Anglican priests have a civil office as registrars so far as I can make out. I can understand them being reluctant to do walk-in marriages for complete unknowns, but it seems to me that they have not only a religious but also a civic duty to their parishoners. Preserving the perks of Established Church status whilst also wanting to pick and choose who they exercise the duties of that status for seems profoundly unjust to me, and another argument in favour of disestablishment. (I much prefer all marriages to be civil with a religious ceremony thereafter for those who so wish, which is how we do things in France).
    This. And it's worth saying that the "civil ceremony + church blessing" thing doesn't just apply to secularist France but to many other countries including traditionally Protestant Holland where it has been the norm for centuries.

    I was married in a non-conformist church in England - and it was essentially this.

    The first section involved legally required and witnessed parts in the presence of a government official. The second section was a bunch of other churchy stuff.

    That's a bit different in the CofE where the priest is also the government official.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    That is slightly unusual; usually a church, once registered for marriages with the local authority, will appoint someone from within the congregation to be an officially Authorised Person. Provided they are present and carry out various checks required, the wedding will have legal status. There doesn't have to be a separate "legal bit" and "church bit" (except for Civil Partnerships), I wonder if things were done that way for you because the church didn't have an AP which meant that a Registrar from the local authority - who needed to be elsewhere soon after - was present instead.

    By the way the AP doesn't have to be a Minister - I prefer not to be but leave the legal formalities to someone else. I therefore tell the Happy Couple that it doesn't matter if I should fall down dead as anyone could continue to lead the service; however if the AP fell down dead we'd be in trouble! A small minority of Nonconformist churches won't do "legal" weddings as they feel it's wrong to act as an agent of the State, even in this limited way. And some churches just don't bother to register themselves.
  • That's right, it was the Registrar, not anyone from the church.

    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.
    The majority, I would think, at least in "main-line" denominational churches (Methodist, Baptist, URC etc) rather than independent conventicles.

    Anyway, back to the real theme of this thread ...

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.
    The majority, I would think, at least in "main-line" denominational churches (Methodist, Baptist, URC etc) rather than independent conventicles.

    Anyway, back to the real theme of this thread ...

    Ok but these are in decline, lots of people get married in "other" churches, also hotels etc.

    My guess is that the BU churches and Methodists are doing more funerals than weddings.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    If the powers that be (PTB) at whatever Anglican level think that gay folks are irredeemably bad and dangerous, I could maybe see them forbidding a gay godparent. But if they're worried about having a "sinner" near the clergy or the altar, then fairness would demand they vet everyone entering the building. Certainly everyone receiving the Eucharist...'cause, you know, that's just for good, perfect, stainless people.

    What justification might exist for it to be OK(ish) for an incumbent to veto a choice of Godparent on the grounds of the prospective GP being gay?

    Dammit, I've been at baptisms where not all the Godparents were even nominally Christian: in fact a friend turned down the opportunity to be a Godmother because not only were her fellow Godparents Jewish (non-practising) and a follower of Zoroastrianism (believing and practising in their home country) but both parents of the infant were loudly proclaiming atheists. After my friend stood down another, atheist, friend of the couple stepped in and the baptism went ahead - and that incumbent, who knew the whole story, went on to become a bishop! (The baptism also took place elsewhere than in the child's home parish and without the knowledge or consent of the home parish priest - only courtesy I know but even so not the done thing.)
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    That's right, it was the Registrar, not anyone from the church.

    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.

    When Mrs Eutychus and I got married about a million years ago, in a Baptist church in the UK, we were told they were not licensed for weddings because they did not have a safe in which to keep the register. A Baptist minister conducted the wedding, and a registrar came to do the registry signing bit. Is that not how things work there now?

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    That's right, it was the Registrar, not anyone from the church.

    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.

    When Mrs Eutychus and I got married about a million years ago, in a Baptist church in the UK, we were told they were not licensed for weddings because they did not have a safe in which to keep the register. A Baptist minister conducted the wedding, and a registrar came to do the registry signing bit. Is that not how things work there now?

    I think @Baptist Trainfan is saying that some big non-conformist churches have selected members of the congregation who deal with the register in place of the official Registrar.

    As I've suggested, I'm not sure how many of those kinds of weddings are conducted these days anyway.

  • TheOrganist--
    Golden Key wrote: »
    If the powers that be (PTB) at whatever Anglican level think that gay folks are irredeemably bad and dangerous, I could maybe see them forbidding a gay godparent. But if they're worried about having a "sinner" near the clergy or the altar, then fairness would demand they vet everyone entering the building. Certainly everyone receiving the Eucharist...'cause, you know, that's just for good, perfect, stainless people.

    What justification might exist for it to be OK(ish) for an incumbent to veto a choice of Godparent on the grounds of the prospective GP being gay?

    Dammit, I've been at baptisms where not all the Godparents were even nominally Christian: in fact a friend turned down the opportunity to be a Godmother because not only were her fellow Godparents Jewish (non-practising) and a follower of Zoroastrianism (believing and practising in their home country) but both parents of the infant were loudly proclaiming atheists. After my friend stood down another, atheist, friend of the couple stepped in and the baptism went ahead - and that incumbent, who knew the whole story, went on to become a bishop! (The baptism also took place elsewhere than in the child's home parish and without the knowledge or consent of the home parish priest - only courtesy I know but even so not the done thing.)

    Ummm...er, easy there...I didn't say I thought it was justified in any way, shape, or form. Just that IF the powers that be thought the horrible things I mentioned, then I could see how *they* might forbid a gay godparent.

    And the rest of my post was mainly sarcasm. I'm sorry, however, for the people and experiences you mentioned.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    That's right, it was the Registrar, not anyone from the church.

    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.

    When Mrs Eutychus and I got married about a million years ago, in a Baptist church in the UK, we were told they were not licensed for weddings because they did not have a safe in which to keep the register. A Baptist minister conducted the wedding, and a registrar came to do the registry signing bit. Is that not how things work there now?

    I think @Baptist Trainfan is saying that some big non-conformist churches have selected members of the congregation who deal with the register in place of the official Registrar.

    As I've suggested, I'm not sure how many of those kinds of weddings are conducted these days anyway.
    I've served in 4 churches - only one of which could remotely be called "big" - and they've all had safes. In two I have been an AP, in two I have not but someone else was. I've never needed the presence of a paid Registrar. I agree that not many weddings are conducted in such churches: they are usually folk with some family connection to the church, or (as in one case) folk who liked the building.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    That's right, it was the Registrar, not anyone from the church.

    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.

    When Mrs Eutychus and I got married about a million years ago, in a Baptist church in the UK, we were told they were not licensed for weddings because they did not have a safe in which to keep the register. A Baptist minister conducted the wedding, and a registrar came to do the registry signing bit. Is that not how things work there now?

    I think @Baptist Trainfan is saying that some big non-conformist churches have selected members of the congregation who deal with the register in place of the official Registrar.

    As I've suggested, I'm not sure how many of those kinds of weddings are conducted these days anyway.
    I've served in 4 churches - only one of which could remotely be called "big" - and they've all had safes. In two I have been an AP, in two I have not but someone else was. I've never needed the presence of a paid Registrar. I agree that not many weddings are conducted in such churches: they are usually folk with some family connection to the church, or (as in one case) folk who liked the building.

    Ok. I thought it was a historical thing related to church size, maybe I was wrong on that.

    But anyway, I still believe that the vast majority of weddings in E&W are conducted by, or in the presence of, the Registrar (or vicar).

    A smaller number are conducted in the presence of an AP, and even smaller number under the provisions allowed for Quaker and Jewish weddings.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Yes. It’s not a requirement in England where there’s no legal minimum age. The officiant needs to make a judgment about the prospective witness’s capacity.

    Oooh I think there is - you cannot witness a contract unless you are over 18. A marriage is the equivalent of a contract in law (and equity)
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    That's right, it was the Registrar, not anyone from the church.

    I wonder how many get married with AP from churches themselves.

    When Mrs Eutychus and I got married about a million years ago, in a Baptist church in the UK, we were told they were not licensed for weddings because they did not have a safe in which to keep the register. A Baptist minister conducted the wedding, and a registrar came to do the registry signing bit. Is that not how things work there now?

    We have 2 people in the congregation who can act as Registrar (we are a Baptist Union Church). The safe is required to keep the 3 (yes 3 books) that have to be signed. Any CofE church would have to have the same safe but the Vicar is always a Registrar in the sense of acting as a clerk in holy orders in the established church, on behalf of the state.

    In a non Anglican church the couple will have to visit the local Registry Office who will issue authority to the church to conduct the wedding. Their names will be advertised for 28 days. No need in the CofE - just visit the Vicar or whatever and have your Banns read.

    In the CofE, unless your marriage is proscribed (3 very limited grounds) the incumbent has to marry the couple if either resides in the parish. Not to do so is to break Canon and Criminal Law.
  • In the CofE, unless your marriage is proscribed (3 very limited grounds) the incumbent has to marry the couple if either resides in the parish. Not to do so is to break Canon and Criminal Law.
    How does that square with the Guidelines referred to above? They seem to allow for exceptions.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    In the CofE, unless your marriage is proscribed (3 very limited grounds) the incumbent has to marry the couple if either resides in the parish. Not to do so is to break Canon and Criminal Law.
    How does that square with the Guidelines referred to above? They seem to allow for exceptions.

    Being married before and living outside of the geographical parish being a couple of very few exceptions.

    A vicar can't refuse to marry a parishioner who has no lawful impediment, who hasn't been married before and who lives in the parish. Providing the two people are of different sexes.

    If they have been divorced, there is a bit of extra permission required.

    Various forms of non-conformist religion are able to refuse to marry anyone on any grounds but - providing the have the relevant permissions from the Registrar - can marry whoever they like. No restrictions on sex or divorce (other than those that they impose on themselves).

  • To be married in a CofE church the couple also have to be over 18, or over 16 with parental consent. And they have to have right to remain in the UK and resident in the UK if they want to be married by banns.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Various forms of non-conformist religion are able to refuse to marry anyone on any grounds but - providing the have the relevant permissions from the Registrar - can marry whoever they like. No restrictions on sex or divorce (other than those that they impose on themselves).
    Not quite - the church has to go through a separate registration process and pay an additional fee if it wants to host "legal" same-sex marriages. (The same is true for Civil Partnerships and can cost £££s - or it did, when my then church investigated some years ago).

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    BroJames wrote: »
    Yes. It’s not a requirement in England where there’s no legal minimum age. The officiant needs to make a judgment about the prospective witness’s capacity.

    Oooh I think there is - you cannot witness a contract unless you are over 18. A marriage is the equivalent of a contract in law (and equity)
    As this page indicates it is not always a requirement that witnesses be over 18, and my previous post directly quoted from the published advice for the clergy (C of E) issued by the Faculty Office.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Various forms of non-conformist religion are able to refuse to marry anyone on any grounds but - providing the have the relevant permissions from the Registrar - can marry whoever they like. No restrictions on sex or divorce (other than those that they impose on themselves).
    Not quite - the church has to go through a separate registration process and pay an additional fee if it wants to host "legal" same-sex marriages. (The same is true for Civil Partnerships and can cost £££s - or it did, when my then church investigated some years ago).

    Ah yes I forgot that there is an extra cost - £100 or something - for the building registration.

    Anyway if/when the church has satisfied those requirements then they can marry whoever they like, providing it is done correctly.

    AFAIU nobody has any "right" to be married in any non-conformist church.

    I had/have a so-called "right" to be married in my university chapel, but I suspect the authorities could say no for any reason


    Edit: which is in Scotland. Yes, I know the rules are different there.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    AFAIU nobody has any "right" to be married in any non-conformist church.
    Correct.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    I've got some more direct info now.

    Essentially, the parish team's belated interest in the bride-to-be's marital history is in inverse proportion to her and her groom's insistence on having the best man of their choice. They are now trying to make a big deal of this history and act all concerned when this is so clearly a diversionary tactic designed to make the couple feel miserable and ashamed.

    If I didn't know what victim-blaming meant before, I certainly do now.

    (This does however tell me that they are also shit-scared. Perhaps they're reading this thread. I hope so).

    In further developments today, they have had another meeting at which it was suggested that the big worry was that the best man, with his significant other close by, might be attempting to get a tacit blessing on their union by standing near enough to the actual couple being married during the ceremony. Seriously.

    I mean how many ways is the above screwed up? Firstly thinking that couples might aspire to "steal" a blessing in much the same way as Jacob did off his dad and thinking they might find this was a fitting way to seal their union. Secondly thinking that they of all Pharisees had a blessing worth stealing. Thirdly just the whole idea of the blessing somehow leaking out. I can't even.

    Thanks to those here who've offered advice and jargon. It's going to be useful. In the meantime, I'd rant on but Ezekiel has already said it better than I could.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I've got some more direct info now.

    Essentially, the parish team's belated interest in the bride-to-be's marital history is in inverse proportion to her and her groom's insistence on having the best man of their choice. They are now trying to make a big deal of this history and act all concerned when this is so clearly a diversionary tactic designed to make the couple feel miserable and ashamed.

    If I didn't know what victim-blaming meant before, I certainly do now.

    (This does however tell me that they are also shit-scared. Perhaps they're reading this thread. I hope so).

    I should have them speak to a journalist. Preferably someone who knows what they're talking about - Church Times, perhaps.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I should have them speak to a journalist.
    What they do is up to them, but in my mind and in my experience the media should be the last resort once every other avenue has failed. Not that I don't have to restrain myself in that direction.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I should have them speak to a journalist.
    What they do is up to them, but in my mind and in my experience the media should be the last resort once every other avenue has failed. Not that I don't have to restrain myself in that direction.

    For sure. If what you are saying is true, then it sounds like things are already very bad.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Continuing the tangent about the age of witnesses, the General Register Office’s Guidebook for The Clergy also states (p. 6)
    There is no restriction on the number of witnesses nor is there an age limit but they must be able to understand what is taking place and testify if necessary as to what they have seen and heard.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I should have them speak to a journalist. Preferably someone who knows what they're talking about - Church Times, perhaps.
    If the parish folks remain obdurate, that might be the way to go.


  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    In theory, the next step, I think, would be for them to make a direct approach to the diocesan bishop - not at this stage to initiate a complaint but to ask for his or her help.
  • @BroJames I've PMd you.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »

    In further developments today, they have had another meeting at which it was suggested that the big worry was that the best man, with his significant other close by, might be attempting to get a tacit blessing on their union by standing near enough to the actual couple being married during the ceremony. Seriously.

    Sick, demented parody.

  • What is the blast radius of an Anglican marriage pronouncement? Roll three d6.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    What's the dex save DC?
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Question: Is it a hard and fast rule that a divorce/divorcee may not be married in an Anglican church? Has this church hosted weddings for any other divorced people? And has anyone actually explained why the married history of this bride (evidently an active, well known member of the parish, not just a person who happens to live within the boundaries) did not get flagged earlier?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    RooK wrote: »
    What's the dex save DC?

    8+ the Cleric's Wis bonus I think.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The answer to your first question, @Lyda is no, it is not a hard and fast rule, and hasn’t been for over quarter of a century - although no-one can be required to officiate at the wedding of a divorced person against the officiant’s conscience.

    Official guidance was issued by the House of Bishops over 15 years ago for clergy about the process to follow.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Eutychus wrote: »
    If I didn't know what victim-blaming meant before, I certainly do now.

    (This does however tell me that they are also shit-scared. Perhaps they're reading this thread. I hope so).

    In further developments today, they have had another meeting at which it was suggested that the big worry was that the best man, with his significant other close by, might be attempting to get a tacit blessing on their union by standing near enough to the actual couple being married during the ceremony. Seriously.

    I mean how many ways is the above screwed up? Firstly thinking that couples might aspire to "steal" a blessing in much the same way as Jacob did off his dad and thinking they might find this was a fitting way to seal their union. Secondly thinking that they of all Pharisees had a blessing worth stealing. Thirdly just the whole idea of the blessing somehow leaking out. I can't even.
    .

    Ok. Not necessarily in order of importance:

    --Sounds like they're afraid it'll work the other way 'round, and they'll catch gay cooties.

    --What planet are they from, and how soon are they going back?

    --What are they smoking? They have a choice of either going into rehab; or smoking as much as they want for the rest of their lives...in a locked facility. They can be happy there, and they won't hurt anyone else.

    --I was acquainted with someone from a very different culture who believed you could get an eye infection from an infected person by looking them directly in the eye. This seems similar, whether catching gay cooties or a marital blessing.

    What else can be caught that way? Priesthood? Money? A new car?

    If a prison sentence can be caught that way, then T should go visit his incarcerated buddies.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    I recall a discussion at university about whether the bread stored in a college kitchen that backed onto the college chapel could inadvertently get caught in the blast radius at Holy Communion and thus transubstantiate. However, that discussion was supposed to be a joke.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    We needed to have this sort of discussion when previously consecrated hosts were on the altar when more were consecrated. We decided that as they had not been on the corporal all was well and no "re-consecration" had occurred.
  • I'd advise that you go to The Church Times now, rather than wait for it to hit a general newspaper which will be far from sympathetic to any of the parties concerned and won't give a rat's ar*e about putting personal identifying details into print.

    I'd leave the diocesan bishop out of the loop simply because, depending on which diocese you are in you may find they consider the PP's "stand" to be principled and "defending Bible beliefs" (or some such nonsense).

    @Eutychus I've sent you a PM at greater length.
  • Surely, whether to go public or not should only be up to the couple?
  • I'd advise that you go to The Church Times now, rather than wait for it to hit a general newspaper which will be far from sympathetic to any of the parties concerned and won't give a rat's ar*e about putting personal identifying details into print.

    I'd leave the diocesan bishop out of the loop simply because, depending on which diocese you are in you may find they consider the PP's "stand" to be principled and "defending Bible beliefs" (or some such nonsense).

    @Eutychus I've sent you a PM at greater length.

    Sadly I don't think anything much is going to help here; getting the press involved might, as is hinted by Eutychus above bring more pain rather than resolution.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I don't agree with @L'Organist.

    I'd strongly advise against going anywhere near the media, not even the church press. Journalists over simplify, distort and are mainly interested in 'the story' as it suits them. Having through work known rather more about the inside of quite a lot of stories that got into the media than most people do, I can assure Shipmates, that virtually all of them were markedly misreported. It would seem too much of a coincidence that this should only the stories I knew about. The more rational deduction is that this applies to virtually everything.

    Letting the media anywhere near is likely to misfire.
  • As already stated, my position is that what happens to the story is up to the couple concerned.

    My more general position is that Matthew 18 15-18 makes a case for going to the media as a last resort, because that is the only way people behaving like this can be held to account, and if they have resisted all attempts to settle the matter any other way, they deserve it.

    Against this the impact on the victims has to be assessed.
  • I suspect any escalation would come down to denials and their word against their word anyway.

    "What do you mean, best man? Oh no, we were objecting about marrying divorced people.."

    If it was me, I would be employing the biblical principle of shaking dust off my shoes and never going anywhere near it again.

    And I'd certainly be talking to the press - preferably when I was far enough away to be protected from any fallout.
  • I'd argue that having the bishop come down on them like a ton of bricks (or the area dean for that matter) would break the log-jam faster than going to the press.

    But this is so pastorally insensitive, you have to wonder how the hell the priest in charge has made it this far in (his? I'm betting it's a him) their career without shooting themselves in the foot.
  • Shaking the dust off your shoes and walking away is the ultimate conclusion and it gives you closure. To re-visit it by going to the media breaks that which strikes me as being pointless and potentially damaging to yourself.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    If it was me, I would be employing the biblical principle of shaking dust off my shoes and never going anywhere near it again.
    That would be my instinct too, but remember these people are well-integrated into their church community and have strong support from the congregation.

    Why should it be up to them to go into exile?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd argue that having the bishop come down on them like a ton of bricks (or the area dean for that matter) would break the log-jam faster than going to the press.

    Possibly. But it is also to potentially open another can of worms, depending on the bishop. Talking to the archdeacon might be worth doing in the first instance - ask directly whether the exclusion of gay people from participation in Anglican weddings is consistent with "diocene policy for the sake of the gospel" because I'm betting it isn't.

    But I wouldn't be surprised if there was a closing of ranks and a fudge which ended up being about divorce.
    But this is so pastorally insensitive, you have to wonder how the hell the priest in charge has made it this far in (his? I'm betting it's a him) their career without shooting themselves in the foot.

    A wild guess - he is the Area Dean.
This discussion has been closed.